STATE OF NEW YORK
                     DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
                           OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                    GERTZ PLAZA
                              92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                              JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

     ------------------------------------X 
     IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE :  ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
     APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO.: BF 130058-RO
                                         :  
       BRISBANE/SYDNEY LEASING              RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
       COMPANIES,                           DOCKET NO.: QS 000272-OM
                           PETITIONER    : 
     ------------------------------------X                             

                 ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING, IN PART, PETITION FOR
             ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW AND MODIFYING ADMINISTRATOR'S ORDER

     On  May  29,  1987,  the  above-named   owner   filed   a   petition   for
     administrative review of an order issued on May 15,  1987  by  a  District
     Rent Administrator concerning the housing accommodations known as  various
     apartments, 98-30/98-32 57th Avenue, Corona, New York.

     The Commissioner has reviewed all the  evidence  in  the  record  and  has
     carefully considered that portion of the record  relevant  to  the  issues
     raised by the petition for administrative review.

     The issue herein is  whether  the  District  Rent  Administrator  properly
     determined the owner's application  for  a  rent  increase  based  upon  a
     claimed major capital improvement (MCI).

     The District Rent Administrator's order, appealed  herein,  increased  the
     rents of all rent-stabilized apartments by .21 of 1% of the rent  paid  as
     of October 1, 1984 (plus temporary arrears of .44 of 1% of the  rent  paid
     as of said date), based upon the installation of  three  new  oil  burners
     (which services two buildings of over 470 apartments) at  a  substantiated
     allowable cost of $23,503.00.  The effective date of the rent increase was 
     determined to be March 1, 1985.  It  was  noted  in  the  order  that  the
     installation of a "fence" for $510.00 was disallowed as this  installation
     did not qualify as a major capital  improvement  and  $20,703.55  was  not
     approved as an allowable cost because signatures of the  vendors  had  not
     been provided where required on the RA-79 form  (owner's  application  for
     rent increase based on the installation of an MCI).

     In this petition the owner, by  its  agent,  alleges,  in  substance,   it
     properly complied  with  the  rent  agency's  requirements  to  completely
     substantiate the total costs incurred for the purchase of the oil  burners
     and the fence.  Regarding the lack of the contractor/vendor signatures  on
     the RA-79 application form, the  owner  asserts,  in  substance,  that  it
     complied  with  rent   agency   instructions   by   providing   affidavits
     identifying the contractor/vendor, the service they provided, at what cost 
     and why the contractor/vendor's signature was not obtained.  Finally,  the
     owner notes that it was able to install the oil burner at half the 'going' 
     price which fact should be accounted for in assessing  the  allowable  MCI
     costs.  The owner encloses a copy of the directions it received  from  the
     rent agency regarding the above-mentioned affidavits being  acceptable  in
     lieu of contractor/vendor signatures.






          DOCKET NUMBER: BF 130058-RO
     After  careful  consideration  of  the  entire  evidence  of  record,  the
     Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative  appeal  should  be
     granted in part.

     The Commissioner notes that the rent agency provides an instruction  sheet
     along with the  RA-79  application  form  (owner's  application  for  rent
     increase   based    on    major    capital    improvements).     Regarding
     contractor/vendor signatures, the instructions  indicate  that  where  the
     contractor/vendor refuses or is unable  to  sign  the  certification,  the
     owner may instead submit an affidavit which must  include  the  following:
     identity of contractor/vendor, work done or materials supplied,  cost  and
     reason why  the  contractor/vendor's  signature  was  not  obtained.   The
     affidavit must be signed, notarized and attached to the  RA-79  Supplement
     form.

     The record in the instant case includes invoices,  cancelled  checks,  and
     management approvals for the purchase  of  three  new  oil  burners  at  a
     substantiated cost of $20,703.55 (which the record shows were installed by 
     a separate contractor) together with requisite governmental sign-offs  for
     the installation and operation of the new oil burners and  copies  of  the
     owner's affidavits identifying several contractor/vendors, the  work  done
     or materials supplied and costs, along with an explanation as to why their 
     signatures were not included.  These affidavits, as required,  are  signed
     and notarized.  While the Administrator properly found the  fence  not  to
     constitute an MCI (accord  CE  430107-RO),  the  Commissioner  is  of  the
     opinion that a further increase is warranted for the substantiated cost of 
     the burners(3); and that the Administrator's order should be  modified  by
     providing for a further rent increase of .18 of 1% of the rent paid on the 
     October 1, 1984 rent roll date resulting in a total increase of .39 of  1%
     of the October 1, 1984 rent based on a total allowed  cost  of  $44,206.55
     plus additional temporary arrears of 1.29% to  cover  the  period  between
     the effective date of the Administrator's order (March 1,  1985)  and  the
     date of issuance of this order  of the Commissioner.

     THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions  of  the  Rent  Stabilization
     Code, it is

     ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is  granted  in  part,
     that the order of the Rent Administrator's be,  and  the  same  hereby  is
     modified as herein above indicated, and that as so modified said order be, 
     and the same hereby is affirmed, and it is further

     ORDERED, that the tenants may pay any arrears in rent resulting from  this
     order in twelve equal monthly installments.

     ISSUED:


                                                                   
                                           JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                        Acting Deputy Commissioner



                                                   
    

TenantNet Home | TenantNet Forum | New York Tenant Information
DHCR Information | DHCR Decisions | Housing Court Decisions | New York Rent Laws
Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | Contact Us

Subscribe to our Mailing List!
Your Email      Full Name